Pastures in areas that are naturally grassy is fine. Pastures that have been created by deforesting the Amazon are not at all ok (Brazil is the worlds largest exporter of beef - not all of that is Amazonian land, but a lot of it is).
Soy is often grown in deforested rainforest areas too. But as a sibling comment says, only 6% of soy goes towards direct human consumption. The rest is for animal feed.
More than 85% of soy grown is for non-human animal consumption. Animal agriculture in Brazil is the leading cause of Amazon deforestation, likewise, animal agriculture in Argentina.
I'm not even sure if you've read the source you've given as it states the same.
Not to mention that most soy humans consume is non-GMO (which excludes practically everything from Argentina and Brazil), and that soy is grown in China, and for example in suprisingly large quantities in Serbia. So it's not even necessary to cut rainforests.
Many sources, spanning many years, and both private (such as newspapers or NGOs) as well as governmental (e.g. the UN), have found that an overwhelming percentage of razed rainforest in Brazil was used for cattle farming [1][2], with a large part of the remainder going to large-scale soy farms, and a tiny bit for small-scale subsistence farming.
"Quite a bit of the Amazon region is used to grow soybeans."
Not that much. Most soy in Brasil come from the Cerrado region, a Savanah-like biome roughly the size of german and france, more or less south of the amazon rain forest. Second to that, the region of the states of mato-grosso, sao paulo and parana.
Soy is not much of a driver for amazon deforestation. The main problems there are illegal loggers, illegal cattle ranching and gold mining.
Sure, if you don't think mass deforestation is cruel... Brazil is one of the biggest soy exporters in the world, and large swathes of rain forest and cerrado (savanna) have given way to soy farms.
Most of Brazillian beef came from natural grassland area, "Serrado"
Also Pantanal (a kind of swampland of sorts) create some awesome natural pastures, although raising cattle there is harder because of the floods.
Amazon Rainforest destruction has much to do with stupidity (the land there is sand actually, destroying the forest to plant ANYTHING there, even soybeans, is stupid idea), logging, illegal land grabbing, and issues related to certain US companies (Cargill in particular is a big offender).
Also there a lot of conflict is going on there, including political, that made the destruction faster, including destruction being sped up in name of conservation, for example worldwide media was all happy when a particular logger got arrested, only for the destruction to speed up after his arrest, because the people that kept calling the police on him were actually trying to use the police to push him out so they could squat the land, and indeed they did so, as soon he was kicked out, illegal loggers and miners moved in, and fortified, now THOSE people can't be kicked out because they are heavily armed and the police fears the political fallout of that. Meanwhile the area they squatted had logging sped-up a lot, and trees that previously were being preserved as seed stock got cut down, ruining the management work being done there.
In the case of Brazilian Amazon forest, indeed there is a negative impact of soybean.
Up to 2006 was a direct impact causing deforestation. But a law passed making it hard to sell soybean cultivated in deforestated areas (specially to the USA).
But still there is an indirect impact, since then. Cattle raising is the main force behind direct forestation of the Amazon on brazilian area. But once the cattle extinguish the resources of the land and move to a new land to deforestate, the soybean farms occupy the empty land they left behind.
So soybean farmers have an interest in supporting cattle raisers deforestation of the Amazon.
Soy. I wrote soy exports. Not "beef production exports".
Brazil (with Argentina) is main soy exporter for most of the worlds livestock.
In the documents below you can find clear numbers of how much hectares is used for pasture, corn, soybean etc. and how much stays forest.
The cause of that deforestation is clear, it is soybean + corn + beef = animal agriculture. Brazil has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world.
That just isn’t true. Most arable land is used to grow animal feed. And maybe the Brazilian rainforests can’t be used for much which has economical value, only things like producing oxygen and being one of the richest and biodiverse ecosystems on earth, but I still think it would be better to try to preserve them instead of converting them to land for grazing.
Rainforest land is not arable. Farmers who try to grow crops (typically soybean) in the Amazon get 2-3 years of crops before the land becomes infertile, then it has to fallow again. Their only option is to add massive amounts of chemical fertilizers which washes out into the Amazon basin. Aside from leaving the forests undisturbed (which is my preference), raising cattle is better for that ecosystem than agricultural farming would be.
Brazil is the dominant food producer in the Western Hemisphere. I didn't mean to bring up soybeans with regard to deforestation (although it is a factor), I used the soybeans example to illustrate that livestock, agriculture and global demand are highly interconnected. There is very little that anyone outside of Brazil can do to tell Brazil how it should manage its land and resources.
You need to have a look at the numbers globally. And include all the deforestation done to clear space for growing soy beans (later used to feed farmed animals).
some sources below
Margulis, Sergio. "Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon". World Bank Working Paper No. 22. 2003
Tabuchi, Hiroko, Rigny, Claire & White, Jeremy. "Amazon Deforestation, Once Tamed, Comes Roaring Back". New York Times. February 2017(New)
Bellantonio, Marisa, et al. "The Ultimate Mystery Meat: Exposing the Secrets Behind Burger King and Global Meat Production". Mighty Earth (New)
Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.
Why would Brazilians cut down more forest if the demand for crops goes down (since a lot of the crops are currently fed to livestock)?
I don't know what they'll do with the areas already cleared but there wouldn't be an economic incentive to cut down more forest.
This study about soy in the US and Brazil that was posted a few weeks ago is quite interesting about the link between deforestation, soy and livestock (https://ourworldindata.org/soy)
It isn't quite true that cattle is the biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon. The number one driver is soy. However, landowners will typically deforest and then place cattle on land for five years, before converting to soy to circumvent regulation. This creates the impression that cattle was the driver, when it was in fact soy.
True, I did mention soy, which (iirc) is the reason why big parts of the Amazon are being flattened and burnt (it was soy or palm oil, probably both?).
I live in NL, where traditionally we held cows (for milk and meat) because the ground would occasionally be flooded with salty seawater; grasses would be the only thing that grew. We had regular farms, built within a sea wall. It was only in the past few hundred years that we built said sea wall around the whole country, making things more viable for 'regular' farming.
The lifecycle is more complex than this. Slash and burn agriculture is used to squeeze a few cash soybean crops out, this requires specific GMO soy, and these are 90% sold to China to fatten pigs.
When the land is only suitable for grass, it's grazed for awhile, after which it's basically desert.
South America also has some of the richest cattle land in the world in the Pampas, which has sustained beef production for hundreds of years on land which is otherwise unsuitable to food production.
Pressure on one company could stop the conversion of rainforest into soybeans. This doesn't solve the problem in a single stroke, nothing can, but it would help, and it doesn't require influence over the government of Brazil.
Yes. Correct. Thank you @evgen. Brazil == soybeans mostly. Those slashed rainforest acres are being chopped with safrinha corn in mind. Those statements by the parent are an easy filter to someone not knowledgeable
Soy is often grown in deforested rainforest areas too. But as a sibling comment says, only 6% of soy goes towards direct human consumption. The rest is for animal feed.
reply